Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• The court raised, on its own initiative, whether the file should be transferred from the Montreal district to the Longueuil district.
   
• Both parties jointly asked that the file remain in Montreal, citing case readiness and reduced costs.
   
• Neither party's counsel practices in the Longueuil district, and both submitted this favored keeping the file in Montreal.
   
• Article 48 of the Code of Civil Procedure permits an exceptional transfer, even on the court's own motion, in the interest of the parties or for other serious reasons.
   
• Geographic connection to the underlying dispute — not counsel's location or procedural convenience — anchored the court's analysis.
   
• Ultimately, the court found that Montreal had no genuine connection to the dispute and ordered the transfer despite the parties' joint objection.
   

Facts of the case

The plaintiff, 9232-0126 Québec inc., commenced proceedings against the defendant, Jacques Wera, on November 11, 2022, filing the action in the Montreal judicial district. The dispute concerns a servitude located in Chambly, a municipality within the Longueuil judicial district, and both parties reside there as well. Despite this, the file had proceeded in Montreal without objection from either side. The parties jointly submitted written representations asking that the file remain in Montreal, arguing that it had already progressed through that district and was ready to be heard, that a transfer to Longueuil would cause additional delay, that no witness — including the defense's expert, who resides in Montreal — would be inconvenienced by a Montreal hearing, and that having counsel based in Montreal reduced costs for both sides.

Policy and legislative provisions at issue

The central provision at issue is article 48 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which allows a chief justice to exceptionally order, even on the court's own motion, the transfer of a file, a hearing, or an enforcement matter to another district where doing so serves the interest of the parties or affected third parties, or where other serious grounds warrant it. The court also considered the guiding principles of proportionality and sound case management under articles 9 and 18 of the Code, which inform how such discretion should be exercised.

Reasoning and analysis

The court characterized the transfer power under article 48 as an exceptional measure, to be assessed in light of the interests of the parties and third parties or other serious motives. It noted that the location of counsel's offices is not, according to existing jurisprudence, a determinative factor in this analysis. Examining the file's actual connection to Montreal, the court found none: the parties and the servitude at the heart of the dispute are all situated in Chambly, within the Longueuil district, and Montreal appeared to have been chosen purely for convenience. The court also noted that the certificate confirming the file was complete had only been filed on June 29, 2026, meaning a transfer at this stage would not create meaningful delay. Drawing on prior case law, the court observed that the interest of justice favors a more rational distribution of judicial resources across the province, and that filing cases in a district for convenience alone contributes to overloading that district and worsening its delays. On balance, the court concluded that the case's connections point clearly, if not exclusively, to the Longueuil district, and that transferring the file there would serve the interest of justice.

Ruling and overall outcome

The court ordered the transfer of the file from the Montreal judicial district to the Longueuil judicial district, with no costs awarded. Notably, this outcome ran contrary to the joint position taken by both the plaintiff and the defendant, who had asked the court to keep the matter in Montreal — meaning neither party's request was granted, as the transfer was ordered on the court's own motion rather than at either side's request. No monetary award, cost order, or damages were granted to either party; the decision is purely procedural in nature.